Al-A'raf: (177) Evil is the example of the people...

It is known that after Allah the Exalted likened them to the dog, saying:

{That is the likeness of the people who denied Our signs.}

And after He warned against disbelief and denial through this, He reinforced the warning by saying:

{Evil is the example of the people...}

There are several points regarding this verse:

Al-Layth said: Sā'a (ساء) is a verb that can be intransitive or transitive. It is said: Sā'at al-shay'u yasū'uhu (The thing became bad), meaning it became ugly. And Sā'ahu yasū'uhu masā'atan (He made the thing bad for him).

The grammarians state that the structure is: Sā'a mathalan mathal al-qawm (Evil is the example, the example of the people).

• Mathalan (مثلاً - an example) is in the accusative case as a tamyīz (specification/discriminator). This is because if you say Sā'a (It became evil), another thing besides mathalan could be mentioned. When you specify the type (example), you distinguish it from other types.
• The case of al-qawm (القوم - the people) being in the nominative case can be understood in two ways:
  1. It is the subject (mubtada') and the phrase Sā'a mathalan (Evil is the example) is its predicate (khabar).
  2. Since you said Sā'a mathalan (Evil is an example), you are asked: Who is it? You answer: Al-qawm (The people). Thus, its nominative case is due to it being the predicate of an omitted subject.

Al-Jahdari recited it as: Sā'a mathalu l-qawm (The example of the people is evil).

The apparent meaning of {Evil is the example} suggests that this example itself is described as evil. This is not permissible because this example was mentioned by Allah the Exalted; how could it be described as evil? Furthermore, this example serves as a warning against disbelief and an invitation to faith; how could it be described as evil?

Therefore, what must be described as evil is the consequence derived from the example: their denial of Allah's signs and their turning away from them, to the extent that they became like the panting dog in this similitude.

As for His saying: {And they were wronging themselves}, this can be interpreted in a few ways:

1. It is coordinated with {who denied} (كذبوا), meaning those who combined denying Allah's signs with wronging themselves.
2. It is a separate statement disconnected from the preceding clause, meaning: They wronged none but themselves through their denial.
3. The object (maf'ūl) being placed first (wa anfusahum) is for the purpose of specification (ikhtiṣāṣ), as if it were said: They exclusively wronged themselves, and the effect of that wrongdoing did not extend beyond them to others.